CCTV "attacking" Baidu

latenlazy · Aug 18, 2011

nameless said:
But most people do.

Unfortunately so. On the other hand, that's their choice. The difference is one of choice and options, not results. Just because you have the option of understanding the world better, does not mean you would be interested in pursuing it. (At the same time of course because you have the option of believing whatever you want doesn't mean you are always right

)

What actually happens is that the main stream media constructs two manufactured goal posts in which opinions are allow but everything outside its shunned. Simply saying there are certain opinion differences in the media does not in any way demonstrate how "free" or truthful it is. Two people lying at the same time does not produce any truth.

I think that's giving them a bit too much credit honestly. Though you do see a bidirectional crystallization of the media, they themselves would not be able to build a market around those points if those points weren't popular, believed, or commonly held. It's a feedback system. If presenting a certain view makes money, that's what you end up getting (viewpoints do come and go in the media). More than anything what the media presents in a capitalist society is dependent on where the money flows.

For all the media diad is worth though there seems to be a diverse enough source of coverage if you're willing to look for them, and there's always going to be sources that disagree with both sides of an issue. In that sense, the media is "free" (free in no way implies truth here though). For all its glorification, it really only means that I'm allowed to trumpet a view and not have people arrest me (which of course isn't always the case in practice). There is no guarantee that people will listen, or believe what I say. The ones who do succeed though become the media moguls, but as always you're "free" to disagree with them. You're "free" to present different views from them, assuming you have the capability (which is where you start seeing a divergence of access and a concentration of views). Ultimately it's not about "diversity" or being "fair" or "balanced" or "accurate". All it means is that we're allowed to disagree with a view and present our own. It does not guarantee fair nor even good sources. Nor does it protect us from being silenced by the noise, just by the state (in fact, the notion of "free media" as it's understood is defined relative to the state).

I am not advocating for a passive consumption of the news here. I am saying opinion differences in the media gives one the chance to think outside of both views. Two people lying does not the truth make, but it does tell you not to take what either of them says for granted and informs you of possible views over a matter beyond any one perspective. Even if the news presents a false dichotomy, knowing that there are elements in one view that is not in the other allows me to realize there are elements to consider outside of either and even both views. Ultimately that's the only real benefit of having a system that can present contradicting views, but it can be a powerful one.

nameless · Aug 18, 2011

latenlazy said:
Unfortunately so. On the other hand, that's their choice. The difference is one of choice and options, not results. Just because you have the option of understanding the world better, does not mean you would be interested in pursuing it.

Actually their so called choices are shaped by the media thus creating a self perpetuating cycle. Like that of a slave who thinks he is free.

I think that's giving them a bit too much credit honestly. Though you do see a bidirectional crystallization of the media, they themselves would not be able to build a market around those points if those points weren't popular, believed, or commonly held. It's a feedback system. If presenting a certain view makes money, that's what you end up getting (viewpoints do come and go in the media). More than anything what the media presents in a capitalist society is dependent on where the money flows.

For all the media diad is worth though there seems to be a diverse enough source of coverage if you're willing to look for them, and there's always going to be sources that disagree with both. In that sense, the media is "free" (free does in no way imply truth here though). For all its glorification, all it really means is that I'm allowed to trumpet a view and not have people arrest me (which of course isn't always the case in practice). There is no guarantee that people will listen, or believe what I say. The ones who do succeed though become the media moguls, but as always you're "free" to disagree with them. That's really all it means.

I am not advocating for a passive consumption of the news here. I am saying opinion differences in the media gives one the chance to think outside of both views. Two people lying does not the truth make, but it does tell you not to take what either of them says for granted and informs you of the possibility that a single view isn't right.

Not really, most of the media is controlled by a few corporations, and they set agendas on the important issues. The point is that people should use their own judgement based on reason, not because the amount of views people think they are getting, not to mention a lot of stuff is just copy and paste from one media outlet to the other.

latenlazy · Aug 18, 2011

nameless said:
Actually their so called choices are shaped by the media thus creating a self perpetuating cycle. Like that of a slave who thinks he is free.

Yes well, your views and perceptions are always going to be in a self perpetuating media of some sort, regardless of whether you live in a single party state or a democracy. Parents, peers, or the state--we are ultimately only men in social systems that have greater power than we do. However, that doesn't mean there isn't a difference between being forced to adopt or believe one view, and being allowed to remain ambiguous or decide things for yourself. You don't control which house you're in, but you do control which door you get to walk through. Similarly, we don't control the fact that we are born, but we do have some say over what we do with ourselves (after the tyranny of parents has passed of course

). Realistically something is always going to prevent us from being Nietzsche's ubermensch.

Not really, most of the media is controlled by a few corporations, and they set agendas on the important issues. The point is that people should use their own judgement based on reason, not because the amount of views people think they are getting, not to mention a lot of stuff is just copy and paste from one media outlet to the other.

These corporations fight amongst each other for market shares. They do set agendas for issues, but I do not have to buy that agenda or accept it. Also, the shape agendas based on what gets them the most revenues. The freedom to direct politics is not absolute, and critical thinking coupled with freedom from punishment allows us a choice on the matter as well. Worst comes to worse, you can always coopt the news and make news of your own

.

nameless · Aug 18, 2011

latenlazy said:
These corporations fight amongst each other for market shares. They do set agendas for issues, but I do not have to buy that agenda or accept it. Also, the shape agendas based on what gets them the most revenues. The freedom to direct politics is not absolute, and critical thinking coupled with freedom from punishment allows us a choice on the matter as well. Worst comes to worse, you can always coopt the news and make news of your own .

Its not based on direct revenues but on the control they exert which in turn translate in to financial gains and influence. The banks, media, government and financial institutions are all intertwined in terms setting agendas. Also the media tells you what to think, it does not promote critical thinking in any way nor is there much freedom since these institutions are designed accept only individuals that adhere to their views.

latenlazy · Aug 18, 2011

nameless said:
Its not based on direct revenues but on the control they exert which in turn translate in to financial gains and influence. The banks, media, government and financial institutions are all intertwined in terms setting agendas. Also the media tells you what to think, it does not promote critical thinking in any way nor is there much freedom since these institutions are designed accept only individuals that adhere to their views.

Well, in this case, the banks, media, government, and financial institutions are where the media gets most of their revenues. Mostly though, it's about advertising, and that also means viewership. Media corporations have a difficult time straddling between what their advertising companies want and what draws in the audience.

I did not say the media itself promotes critical thinking, merely that in a "free media" environment it can't enforce the suppression or elimination of it. Furthermore, the media is optional, in a manner of speaking. While I don't disagree that their are constraints to entering these institutions, you are not forced to adopt them, and you are free to start your own (like Al Gore or Michael Bloomberg, again the limitation is in individual power and not in perspective). Usually of course this means making it into some of the other institutions of power like government or banking, but nothing about that forces you to adopt the same views as others within the institution, and often times you see the clash of interests even within those institutions of power (even single party states like the CCP experience factionalism). They are not wholly monolithic things.

Furthermore, the requirements to enter and perform in these institutions are not always (and it can be argued hardly ever) based on agendas and political interests. Sometimes it is self interest, or an ideal/ideological interest, or a collective interest, etc. As a result, even a centralized media system can seem schizo. The broader point is that having competing interests provides a better opportunity to scrutinize things for yourself than what having a unitary system can provide.

solarz · Aug 19, 2011

latenlazy said:
I did not say the media itself promotes critical thinking, merely that in a "free media" environment it can't enforce the suppression or elimination of it.

Actually, it can.

Take 9/11 for example. I'm sure you are all aware of the so-called "conspiracy theories" out there. I've read something about it, and I have to say, from an objective point of view, there definitely are irregularities, and the mainstream "rebuttals" of those theories have failed to address those irregularities.

Furthermore, the US has never had any definite proof of the Taliban or al-Qaeda being behind the attacks. The closest thing they have is a recording made by someone who looks like bin Laden boasting about the attacks. Many experts doubt the authenticity of the video, with good reason: it seemed to have no purpose other than to boast about the attacks, made only a few weeks after bin Laden categorically denied involvement, and the "bin Laden" portrayed was much more healthy and "filled out" than the bin Laden seen only a couple of months ago.

Anyway, my point is, it doesn't matter what you believe, any theory that goes against the mainstream idea that 9/11 is perpetuated by the al-Qaeda is instantly relegated to the bins of "conspiracy theories" and anyone who ascribes to such theories are dismissed as "crackpots".

That is a far more insidious kind of censorship than the PRC practices.

latenlazy · Aug 19, 2011

solarz said:
Actually, it can.

Media in a "free" environment can only censor by not giving coverage, not by actively blocking.

Take 9/11 for example. I'm sure you are all aware of the so-called "conspiracy theories" out there. I've read something about it, and I have to say, from an objective point of view, there definitely are irregularities, and the mainstream "rebuttals" of those theories have failed to address those irregularities.

I read them too, and I am not convinced. The problem with conspiracy theories is that they're perfectly logical, but they're either weak when excluding other logical explanations, or assume premises that aren't necessarily true, including ones based on how physics works.

The main point is though, 9/11 conspiracies aren't "censored" or "suppressed". If they were they would not have garnered such a following. People can disagree or even be upset by them, and they can repudiate them or try to stem their proliferation by not talking about them. However, their proliferation is dependent on how people decide to communicate ideas to one another, and not on the threat of physical coercion or forced censorship. In this way no one can force you to believe (or pretend to believe) anything. What information you want to have access to or believe is solely your choice. If you really want to read about something that the public en masse don't agree with no one else covers, you can find it (though it might require a bit more searching).

Furthermore, the US has never had any definite proof of the Taliban or al-Qaeda being behind the attacks. The closest thing they have is a recording made by someone who looks like bin Laden boasting about the attacks. Many experts doubt the authenticity of the video, with good reason: it seemed to have no purpose other than to boast about the attacks, made only a few weeks after bin Laden categorically denied involvement, and the "bin Laden" portrayed was much more healthy and "filled out" than the bin Laden seen only a couple of months ago.

I am always suspicious of people who claim they are "experts" online...but how you look on film is dependent on several things, including lighting, perspective, angle, focal distance, and distortion (the joke about people always looking 5 lbs heavier on camera). Sometimes, people just look less or more healthy on difference days. Small things like paleness or bags under your eyes can change how a person looks remarkably. That's a side point mostly for curiousity's sake of course.

Anyway, my point is, it doesn't matter what you believe, any theory that goes against the mainstream idea that 9/11 is perpetuated by the al-Qaeda is instantly relegated to the bins of "conspiracy theories" and anyone who ascribes to such theories are dismissed as "crackpots".

That is a far more insidious kind of censorship than the PRC practices.

Again, just because the mainstream decides it is a "conspiracy theory" does not mean they can suppress or are suppressing a certain view. If they really could, there wouldn't even be a 9/11 conspiracy. Free media does not guarantee that everyone gets a fair showing on the court of public opinion, just that you are free to find and express that information if you really want it. It just means that even if the media institutions trumpet a certain view, you are free to believe otherwise and find your own reasons, and present those reasons. How well they do afterwards are left to social and market forces, but at the very least no one's going to block you from speaking like a crazy person.

The kind of censorship that the PRC practices eliminates choice and blocks access.

solarz · Aug 19, 2011

latenlazy said:
Again, just because the mainstream decides it is a "conspiracy theory" does not mean they can suppress or are suppressing a certain view. If they really could, there wouldn't even be a 9/11 conspiracy. Free media does not guarantee that everyone gets a fair showing on the court of public opinion, just that you are free to find and express that information if you really want it. It just means that even if the media institutions trumpet a certain view, you are free to believe otherwise and find your own reasons, and present those reasons. How well they do afterwards are left to social and market forces, but at the very least no one's going to block you from speaking like a crazy person.

The kind of censorship that the PRC practices eliminates choice and blocks access.

I disagree completely. There are only a handful of corporations owning all of the mainstream media outlets. If those corporations all agreed on a certain view, there is very little any other news outlet can do to convince people otherwise.

You see examples of this all the time, especially regarding China issues:

- The mainstream media perpetuates the myth that Tibet was an "independent" country before the PLA "invaded" it in 1951, this despite the fact that Taiwan also claims Tibet as part of China.

- Falung Gong keeps spreading the myth that PRC harvests organs from live prisoners, and mainstream media repeats the myth without any evidence to back it up. This, despite international organizations have found no evidence to back this claim.

- Back in the preludes of the Iraq War, almost *every* American news outlet was spreading the fabrications presented by Powell at the UN. Over 90% of Americans were convinced that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

And making someone with a different opinion look or sound like a crazy person is a far more powerful way of censoring him than just arresting and silencing him.

latenlazy · Aug 19, 2011

solarz said:
I disagree completely. There are only a handful of corporations owning all of the mainstream media outlets. If those corporations all agreed on a certain view, there is very little any other news outlet can do to convince people otherwise.

You see examples of this all the time, especially regarding China issues:

- The mainstream media perpetuates the myth that Tibet was an "independent" country before the PLA "invaded" it in 1951, this despite the fact that Taiwan also claims Tibet as part of China.

- Falung Gong keeps spreading the myth that PRC harvests organs from live prisoners, and mainstream media repeats the myth without any evidence to back it up. This, despite international organizations have found no evidence to back this claim.

- Back in the preludes of the Iraq War, almost *every* American news outlet was spreading the fabrications presented by Powell at the UN. Over 90% of Americans were convinced that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

And making someone with a different opinion look or sound like a crazy person is a far more powerful way of censoring him than just arresting and silencing him.

No one is preventing you from reading news from other countries.

I'm not disagreeing with you. However, the point of a free media system isn't that every view point will be given the same convictions, or that they will all be presented fairly or at all. The only thing a free media system guarantees is that they can be presented. A free media system does not guarantee diversity, fairness, or truth. It allows for it.

-The western media perpetuated Tibetan independence (I don't see the same kind of coverage as a decade ago, the press does evolve), but that does not mean you weren't free to believe otherwise, and it does not mean you weren't allowed access sources that disagreed.

I didn't say the press is not political. It often is. Nor did I say the press does not exclude views. It often does. The difference is that no one is forcing you to adopt those politics, and not one single politics has monopoly over truth or being "right". No one is preventing you from looking for another source of news that doesn't exclude the information you believe is there. In fact, no one is preventing you from publicizing your disagreements. Whether people believe you or not is another matter, but a free press does not guarantee that you will be treated fairly, or that you will be believed.

-Falun Gong keeps spreading the "myth" that the PRC harvest organs from live prisoners, but the PRC is equally free to counter those claims, as well as accuse Falun Gong of being separatist (while I certainly don't like them, I do not think they're "separatist"). If one is believed over the other, that is an individual decision. The difference between a free and censored press system isn't based on whether Falun Gong can or cannot make false accusations, it is based on whether you as an individual would even be able to find sources that confirm international organizations have found no supporting evidence for it.

-Regarding the Iraq War, you were free to believe otherwise. That more people didn't was unfortunate. Nonetheless, free media doesn't remove indoctrination from society. Technically we are indoctrinated into every aspect of life by every social force we engage in. All it does is remove the monopolization of indoctrination.

Making someone with a different opinion look or sound like a crazy person can also backfire and make you look out of touch (ie tea party), stripping the power of your media organization. The liberal media makes fox news look crazy all the time, but that only makes conservatives love fox news even more.

Also, you are presenting a false dichotomy there. Who's to say that they won't make you look or sound like a crazy person while they're arresting and silencing you?

To clarify, I am not saying a free media system guarantees any kind of normative outcome. I think that's a common fallacy formed by ideological interests. However, a free media system allows for the possibility of disagreement and information competition. Would you be able to have a valid disagreement with me regarding the 9/11 conspiracy citing alternative sources if we lived in a system of censorship media that sought out to silence conspiracy theories?

nameless · Aug 19, 2011

latenlazy said:
Well, in this case, the banks, media, government, and financial institutions are where the media gets most of their revenues. Mostly though, it's about advertising, and that also means viewership. Media corporations have a difficult time straddling between what their advertising companies want and what draws in the audience.

Its a monopoly not a free market, and news/opinions have little to do with advertising, the big money comes from other sources.

I did not say the media itself promotes critical thinking, merely that in a "free media" environment it can't enforce the suppression or elimination of it. Furthermore, the media is optional, in a manner of speaking. While I don't disagree that their are constraints to entering these institutions, you are not forced to adopt them, and you are free to start your own (like Al Gore or Michael Bloomberg, again the limitation is in individual power and not in perspective). Usually of course this means making it into some of the other institutions of power like government or banking, but nothing about that forces you to adopt the same views as others within the institution, and often times you see the clash of interests even within those institutions of power (even single party states like the CCP experience factionalism). They are not wholly monolithic things.

It does indeed suppress in fact one could argue that it does a far more better job at it than more traditional forms of censorship.

Furthermore, the requirements to enter and perform in these institutions are not always (and it can be argued hardly ever) based on agendas and political interests. Sometimes it is self interest, or an ideal/ideological interest, or a collective interest, etc. As a result, even a centralized media system can seem schizo. The broader point is that having competing interests provides a better opportunity to scrutinize things for yourself than what having a unitary system can provide.

Are you seriously? Do you see what is happening? People are literally being brainwashed, the so called competing interest are only there to distract but the money and power behind them is the same.

latenlazy said:
No one is preventing you from reading news from other countries.

I'm not disagreeing with you. However, the point of a free media system isn't that every view point will be given the same convictions, or that they will all be presented fairly or at all. The only thing a free media system guarantees is that they can be presented. A free media system does not guarantee diversity, fairness, or truth. It allows for it.

Its not free, somethings are simply unacceptable in the media. I don't know why you keep repeat this myth of free media. When the truth stares you in the face and you no longer recognize it, that is the result of this so called "free" media.

-The western media perpetuated Tibetan independence (I don't see the same kind of coverage as a decade ago, the press does evolve), but that does not mean you weren't free to believe otherwise, and it does not mean you weren't allowed access sources that disagreed.

Some people are different but we are talking about the majority here. They can simply discredit those who tell the truth due to their monopoly of the media, at this point in time they do not need to cut off access.

I didn't say the press is not political. It often is. Nor did I say the press does not exclude views. It often does. The difference is that no one is forcing you to adopt those politics, and not one single politics has monopoly over truth or being "right". No one is preventing you from looking for another source of news that doesn't exclude the information you believe is there. In fact, no one is preventing you from publicizing your disagreements. Whether people believe you or not is another matter, but a free press does not guarantee that you will be treated fairly, or that you will be believed.

Actually they are, if you hold a different views then you will be shunned and ostracized, that is a fact. As I have said its a self perpetuating propaganda machine.

-Falun Gong keeps spreading the "myth" that the PRC harvest organs from live prisoners, but the PRC is equally free to counter those claims, as well as accuse Falun Gong of being separatist (while I certainly don't like them, I do not think they're "separatist"). If one is believed over the other, that is an individual decision. The difference between a free and censored press system isn't based on whether Falun Gong can or cannot make false accusations, it is based on whether you as an individual would even be able to find sources that confirm international organizations have found no supporting evidence for it.

If you keep telling the same lie over and over then people will believe it, and most Americans are sadly a product of this. The number of critical thinkers are not that many.

-Regarding the Iraq War, you were free to believe otherwise. That more people didn't was unfortunate. Nonetheless, free media doesn't remove indoctrination from society. Technically we are indoctrinated into every aspect of life by every social force we engage in. All it does is remove the monopolization of indoctrination.

One could argue that the average American is far more indoctrinated than the average Chinese, its clear to me which is the more indoctrinated nation.

Making someone with a different opinion look or sound like a crazy person can also backfire and make you look out of touch (ie tea party), stripping the power of your media organization. The liberal media makes fox news look crazy all the time, but that only makes conservatives love fox news even more.

The political mudslinging is just a sideshow that hides the nations real problems. It is only getting worse, while in reality nothing changes.

To clarify, I am not saying a free media system guarantees any kind of normative outcome. I think that's a common fallacy formed by ideological interests. However, a free media system allows for the possibility of disagreement and information competition. Would you be able to have a valid disagreement with me regarding the 9/11 conspiracy citing alternative sources if we lived in a system of censorship media that sought out to silence conspiracy theories?

No it doesn't, as solarz pointed out on it does not allow disagreement or information competition outside of the goalposts.

CCTV "attacking" Baidu

latenlazy

Brigadier

nameless

Junior Member

latenlazy

Brigadier

nameless

Junior Member

latenlazy

Brigadier

solarz

Brigadier

latenlazy

Brigadier

solarz

Brigadier

latenlazy

Brigadier

nameless

Junior Member